People often assume that if their divorce happened overseas, the English court cannot help with finances afterwards. That is not always right.
In some cases, Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 allows a spouse to apply for financial relief in England and Wales after an overseas divorce. But there is an important requirement: before the case can move forward, the applicant must first get the court’s permission.
Written by Yi Ling Lio, Legal Assistant
If you are new to Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act, our earlier article, “Think your divorce abroad was unfair? You might still have a case in England”, explains the basics in plain terms.
That permission stage matters in practical terms. It affects cost, timing, and how quickly a case becomes contested. And after the Supreme Court’s decision in Potanina v Potanin, the court is now much less likely to decide that question after hearing from one side only.
In AT v NT [2025] EWFC 456, Peel J made clear that although a Part III application may still be issued without notice under the rules, the question of whether permission should be granted will now usually be decided on notice. In other words, the other party will generally be told about the application and given a chance to respond before the court decides whether the case can proceed.
That is an important practical change.
What do “on notice” and “without notice” mean?
These terms sound technical, but the distinction is simple.
On notice means the other party knows about the application and can put their case before the judge makes a decision.
Without notice means the court is asked to act before the other party is told, usually because there is said to be some urgency or risk in giving advance warning.
Historically, permission applications under Part III were often dealt with without notice at the first stage. If permission was granted, the respondent would then apply to have that order set aside. That often meant more time, more cost, and effectively two hearings about the same point.
The Supreme Court in Potanina pushed back against that approach. It made clear that where a without notice permission order is challenged, the court must decide the issue afresh after hearing both sides. Against that background, Peel J’s view in AT v NT was straightforward: if both parties are likely to be heard anyway, it will usually be fairer and more efficient to deal with permission once, on notice, rather than twice.
What happened in AT v NT?
The parties were Russian nationals. They had lived in England during the marriage, later divorced in Russia, and had previously reached a financial agreement in England which was intended to provide substantial support for the wife.
The wife later said that matters had seriously unravelled. On her case, the former London family home had been caught up in restructuring and borrowing, the property was eventually repossessed, and she was left in a financially insecure position. She then applied in England for permission to pursue a Part III claim.
At the same time, she asked the court for urgent protection in relation to the London property she was living in. Her concern was that if the husband was told about the application in advance, she might be evicted.
The case raised two linked but distinct questions:
- should permission be granted for a Part III claim, and
- what, if any, urgent protection could be put in place in the meantime?
Why is an on notice hearing now likely to be the norm?
Peel J said that, following Potanina, he had real difficulty seeing why permission should usually be granted without hearing from the respondent first.
He accepted that there may still be exceptional cases. For example, the court might dismiss a plainly hopeless application without troubling the respondent, or there may be situations where giving notice is difficult or impracticable. But those cases are likely to be rare.
The broader message is clear: applicants should no longer assume that Part III permission will be granted quietly at the first stage, with the real dispute only emerging later. In most cases, the issues are now likely to be contested earlier.
What does an applicant still need to show?
The permission stage is not a full trial, but it is still an important filter.
An applicant must show:
- that England and Wales has the necessary connection to the case, and
- that there is a solid basis for making a Part III claim here.
That does not mean proving the whole case at the outset. But the court does need to be satisfied that the claim is properly arguable and that England and Wales is not being asked to step in without good reason.
What if urgent protection is needed before permission is decided?
This is where the case becomes especially useful in practice.
Peel J pointed out that the specific anti-dissipation protection under section 23 of the 1984 Act only becomes available after permission has been granted. If permission is now more likely to be dealt with on notice, that can leave a gap.
But that does not mean an applicant is left without options.
Depending on the facts, the court may still be able to grant interim protection before permission is decided. That may include:
- a freezing injunction, where there is a real concern about assets being moved or disposed of
- a preservation order, to protect specific property while the court considers the next step
- a Land Registry restriction, which can help preserve the position in relation to a property title
That last point mattered in AT v NT. Peel J was not deciding that the wife had a final proprietary right in the property, nor was he deciding the whole Part III claim at that stage. He was, however, prepared to grant a targeted restriction to hold the position while the permission question was dealt with properly.
What did Peel J do?
He did not grant permission without hearing from the husband.
Instead, he adjourned the permission application so it could be determined on notice. He said it would make little sense, and would be contrary to the spirit of Potanina, to grant permission without notice only for the parties to return for what would effectively be the same argument all over again.
At the same time, he did grant interim protection by ordering a restriction against the property. That allowed the court to preserve matters for the moment without short-circuiting the proper process on permission.
Why does this matter for clients?
The practical lesson is that Part III cases are now more likely to become contested earlier. If you are thinking about making a claim in England after an overseas divorce, you should not assume the court will decide permission without hearing from the other side. That may mean more front-loaded preparation, and more careful thought about the evidence from the outset.
Equally, if there is an immediate concern about housing or assets, the answer may not be to press for without notice permission. The better course may be to seek a more targeted form of interim protection while the permission issue is dealt with on notice. AT v NT shows how important that early procedural strategy can be.
Have questions? Get in touch today!
Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.
Email us on [email protected].
Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/
For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.
